If personal anecdote is poor evidence of a more universal truth, then fictional anecdote is even worse, and the foundation of a great novel deserves better.

So I propose that there is a place for direct, sustained, quantitive analysis/argument in literary fiction.

The main characters and their immediate story need not, and absolutely should not, be touched by this. But the establishment of setting is also important, and this ought to be done, well, with direct, sustained, quantitive analysis/argument.

Playing in good faith by the rules of the world controllers earns certain undesirable peoples precisely zero credit. As a case in point, recent elections held in the war-ravaged east of Ukraine have unsurprisingly been summarily dismissed by Washington and Brussels. Any political expression running contrary to the aims and ends of the globalist superclass is denounced as illegal and illegitimate, with selective application of international law the one observable norm.

As demonstrated by the riots across America, Blacks can’t handle the truth, the truth being that some cop shot some thug in order to save his life. When the shooting happened there were riots, and now that the decision has been made to clear the police officer there are yet more riots. Looks like any excuse to torch a looted liquor store.

Sensitive Whites talk about the "tragedy" and send their reporters into danger to show empathy with the rioters; while some even suggest that Darren Wilson, regardless of his innocence, should have been offered up as a sacrifice for the greater good.

At the age of 41, in the middle of what would prove to be his last year on earth, Danish writer and theologian Soren Kierkegaard shook off all subterfuge, dispensed with his coterie of coy pseudonyms, rejected his heretofore treasured "indirect approach" to polemics, and became for a time a hyper-conspicuous figure in Danish society, passing out homemade literature on street corners and railing against church authorities in a succession of scathingly-worded newspaper columns.

Kierkegaard's antics made a generally negative impression upon the Copenhagen cognoscenti, who mostly regarded him as a nuttering nuisance, or at best an eccentric monomaniac publicly flogging an increasingly woebegone spiritual hobbyhorse in a most unseemly manner. Yet the Kierkegaardian critique of the state-funded Danish Lutheran church, if severe, was in fact quite astute, and his approach, while brazen, avoided overt self-indulgence.

Andy and Colin are joined by Matt Forney, the bête noire of feminists, to discuss the rising tide of intolerance, rape culture, female sexuality,the victim hierarchy, and the increasing divisions among SJWs over issues like the rape allegations made against Bill Cosby.

The BBC have developed quite a nice line in ever-so-reasonable explanations for the unacceptable, ineffable, and unspeakable.

I guess this is something they developed during WWII and the Cold War, as part of their role as cheerleaders and/or wardens of the coming apocalypse that the West was forced to ready itself for, in order to stand up to the recurring threats of Eurasian totalitarianism.

The good news is that Interstellar – the latest film by Hollywood wunderkind Christopher Nolan – is an intelligent science fiction film in the 70’s meta-cinema mold. It asks big, eugenic, and vaguely fascistic questions about humanity’s future, and posits big answers, too, in a way that is refreshingly daring and original for a mainstream film made in this day and age.

Now and then the back end of the Liberal-Leftist train – i.e. the Conservative baggage car – makes a mournful, screeching sound as its slightly off-centre wheels dig into the rails down which the Leftist locomotive is dragging it. Such a screech resonates through a recent article in The Spectator, that bastion of old-school British conservativism that doesn’t really know what to do about the premises of the Liberal Left – except to lube well before being shafted by them in the best public school fashion.

Whether or not Gruber’s actions are evil, acceptable or merely predictable, he raised an interesting point for the American voters: would you elect yourself to the position of voter? After all, it seems like every year confidence in government falls and yet the voters keep consistently electing bad leaders.

As they say in the hills, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It turns out the Barack Hussein Obama presidency has brought unprecedented levels of corruption, failure and reduced national prestige, but voters seemingly excited about his half-African origins and strong liberal credentials voted him into office twice. Is it time for the voters to step down?

I am not stoical by nature, by temperament, or by habit. To my everlasting exasperation, I find that I continue to crave the applause, admiration, and approval of my fellow man. Horrifically enough, I still have hope for the future. I still cross my fingers, hold my breath, and get butterflies in my stomach when I anticipate the possibility of obtaining some manner of temporal success or victory in life. When someone pays me a compliment, I find my inner Sally Field – "You like me; you really like me!!" – annoyingly asserting herself. (Yes, the part of me that gushes in such a manner is unquestionably a woman.)

I have long held hardy, unyielding stoicism in the highest regard, but Epictetus I ain't. I talk a good game, and perhaps even project a convincing image, but deep down – well, not really even that deep down – I still cannot resign myself to reality with manful resolve. I find myself more often raging against the inevitable than accepting it.

The recent debate over ‘vantardism’ has shone light on a problem that the true Right desperately needs to deal with before it can hope to harness its energies effectively. Reluctant as I am to whip up an already well-stirred pot, I think that the more suggestions are advanced for the resolution of the problem, the better.

For anyone who doesn’t already know, ‘vantardism’ – as defined by Greg Johnson – refers to stupid and self-defeating attempts at ‘vanguardism,’ i.e. organising a political vanguard. As far as the true Right is concerned, this vantardism nearly always amounts to a militant insistence on shackling Rightist ideals to the corpse of Hitler’s Third Reich, accompanied by the argument that everyone who does not do the same is merely indulging in a futile and cowardly dissimulation. The fact that the latter argument has any credibility at all can no doubt be traced back to the very real cowardice and futility of the mainstream conservative ‘false Right’ – which, as we are all aware, has fought the postwar cultural revolution in the West half-heartedly, two-mindedly and one-handedly, while employing most of its energies to viciously stab in the back any comrades who dare to overstep the bounds of progressivist “respectability.”

Here in the bars, bazaars, and dens of iniquity that make up the ex-pat Far East, you run into your fair share of cads, chancers, and 'rum' fellows – the sort of chaps whose eccentricities and slight quirks go unnoticed amid the teeming masses of Asia. The broad-minded and perpetually distracted Oriental, it seems, has a nasty habit of lumping all White men in together and glossing over the subtle codes and hierarchies by which we define ourselves.

The internet has revolutionized the media of the West, and – because "the medium is the message" – it has also radically skewed our culture in new and unexpected directions. Before its advent the media was much more centralized. As a result, it tended to favour a corporatist approach along with small ‘c’ conservative values.

But now things have changed. Social media has become the driving engine of the "new media" and a major determinant of the news and opinion agenda. Those sites and publications that have adjusted themselves to this new clickbait reality are burgeoning. The rest are withering.

But has anyone besides Facebook (!) stopped to think about this in a systemic way? The old, centralized media naturally favoured the message of its paymasters and tended to project their values, but how about the new decentralized media with its powerful social media component? How does that work?

A year ago Richard Cooper wrote a piece for Salondecrying superheroes as a bunch of fascists. What triggered him in this instance was The Dark Knight Rises, and the similarities he saw between Bane’s revolutionary movement and Occupy Wall Street.

“Where are the left-wing superheroes?” he asked, “Maybe one day we will see a superhero movie championing something other than fascist or hypercapitalist values: a superhero movie in which it isn’t physical superiority that saves the day.”

In my previous post, I attempted to draw attention to the inevitable discord between one's individual willingness to struggle for the sake of the truth – however raw and lacerating be the resultant strain on his psyche – and his simultaneous desire to wrap himself in the sort of deliciously comfy cocoon of collective "struggle" provided by mass movements, through which he is provided the opportunity to remove his autonomy and subordinate his will to that of whichever "Party" he has opted to join.

I avoid the sports pages because they are the officially approved method of administering the “opiate of the masses,” along with the rest of the media products that have no actual use in a healthy life. Occasionally however the sports pages produce something of interest because, much like the audience for GamerGate, the sports audience is aggressive and realistic. Too much intervention by cultural Marxism or PC and they head for the hills.

“Only 14% of people surveyed by Ifop, a leading market research company, said that they would vote for Hollande if the presidential elections were held this week, compared to 29% for Le Pen. 26% of respondents said they would vote for former president Nicolas Sarkozy if he were to be selected as the candidate for the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) party. Sarkozy announced his intention to challenge Hollande for the presidency in the 2017 election in September.” Newsweek

Some time ago – as most readers will remember – the white people of progressive America hung their sinful heads in reverence as a low-tone, monotonous jangle (such as might be made by a large hollow object falling to the ground), accompanied by a hot, angry gust of wind (such as might be let out of an artificially-inflated receptacle), reverberated with the dull sepulchral echo of state-sanctified mediocrity across their troubled land. The hollow object was Maya Angelou and her so-called “poetry”; the hot bag of air was Ta-Nehisi Coates and his so-called “case for slavery reparations”; and given that these two had been puffed up to such giant proportions by the ethos of affirmative action, none in the establishment media dared to question that the cacophony emanating from them was anything other than an oracle of Social Justice.

Readers of this site will remember the "big internet war" that Alternative Right (and our allies Counter-Currents) had with the Daily Stormer over its criticism of RamZPaul and its support for the write-in candidate for the Kentucky Senate race, Robert "with Jews we lose" Ransdell.

You may also remember my point: that ghettoizing White nationalism by associating it with everything "lampshady" – whether imagery or real – was a pointless, no-win strategy and one designed by its supporters, such as Andrew Anglin, to keep healthy White nationalism confined to a diseased and rat-infested ghetto, where it would continue to wither and die; unlike Europe where it is thriving.

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.

I want to take you back. Back to a time of peace and love. Beautiful girls danced around wearing nothing but crowns made of flowers. Men had given up war and sat around playing music. Everyone shared their pot in order to come to greater understanding. And most importantly love was free and casually handed out in the name of enjoying sex without the oppressive institute of marriage.

Yes marriage. That evil arrangement of the patriarchy which had long held women in the tyrannical clutches of their male overlords. Feminist, hippies, reformers; the whole spectrum of Leftism had come together and pushed aside that long-lived prison for the fairer sex in the name of Progress.

But the march of Progress is never ending. With women liberated, it is now time to liberate gays. To do so we must agitate for them to enter the evil, oppressive, patriarchal institution of marri…

The multicultural, transgender paradise that is present-day Britain seems to be getting cold feet recently about its sacred mission to immeasurably enrich the lives of its citizens. This is a pity because without a full-frontal, 24-7 media blitzkrieg promoting every form of diversity and perversity, there is a real danger of progress slowing to a halt and reactionary tendencies setting in.

"Community" is a one of those magical words. Once you apply it to a group – any group – it instantly conjures up an image of concerned individuals gathered together, earnestly discussing important stuff and making judicious, organic decisions that "interface" with local reality. They might even be "addressing issues," another mystic and magical phrase with which it is often conjoined.

Stick "community" on to the end of any group designation and watch it turn suddenly respectable:

The issue of political identity is not often connected with spiritual sources in the eyes of the average citizen; however on an imperceptible, inextricable level, the two are combined in a myriad of ways which escape the notice of many. Indeed, the application of spiritual and/or mythical elements being deployed as part of a political agenda is nothing new, for it can found in a diverse range of historical epochs from the time of the Roman Empire to contemporary politics.

The parallel I wish to draw is between the concept of the Primordial Tradition (standing as a sui generis argument) to the theory of primordialism in political science, with the specific intent of identifying and providing a new definition of cultural identity that is intended to bypass both the political left/right dichotomy and approach identity from a ‘top-down’ perspective, as opposed to a flat, unilateral model of left/right duality.

The need for a new theory of national identity is becoming one of paramount importance in the increasingly isolated world of mass ‘individualism’ which has come to predominate the modern world. In the process of cross-comparison between Traditions and primordialism, a clear narrative of interaction will be extrapolated to reveal a blue print for the construction of a new form of political theory that seeks to redefine the common elements in national identities.